Wikipedia talk:List of images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] ...

Okay, why do need this? Images are to be in articles, and can be found in the appropriate articles. Those not in use in articles are orphans, and are found here, Special:Unusedimages. This is the worst and most redundant idea I've ever seen for Wikipedia, bar none. -- user:zanimum

No need to be insulting zanium. There are lists of everything on wikipedia, from german u-boats to presidents of the united states]]. Providing a thumbnail listing of images allows an alternative way to find information on wikipedia, that is, visually. Theon 04:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I've wanted a sorted index of images for ages, but is this the best way to do it? How about using the category system (when it's finally up and running}? It would be easier to take the image page and add it to a category which was Images/dogs than this system, however the gallery you've set up is useful. I wonder if it would be possible to change the category system so that it would display thumbnails of images? fabiform | talk 16:28, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

what is the category system that youre talking about. do you have a link?Theon 19:21, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
It's something that is expected to be part of the new version of MediaWiki which is due to be released sometime soon. It's still in testing at the moment. Angela. 23:41, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
The problem with the category system is that it doesn't allow visual browsing. For visual people (who prefer images over text), that can make a big difference in terms of usefulness. Wilke 20:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

*cough* Special:Imagelist *cough* --Smack 00:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Not sure about overlap between architecture and places - is architecture for architecturally interesting buildings? Should pictures of, say, Covent Garden, be in Places/Europe/UK/London (for example) instead? Secretlondon 09:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have been thinking about issues like this one. I think the answer is that images can be appear in separate galleries, if they belong into both categories. Wilke 20:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this could be a good idea - as it allows users access to a repository of copyleft and PD images. It could be useful for other wikipedias as well as other projects entirely. Secretlondon 09:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think, as it stands, this page is fundamentally useless. We already have Special:Unusedimgages. But I think this could be very useful, if its purpose was changed. Instead of being a dumping ground for those images that aren't used in an article, if this were a complete gallery of our copyleft and PD images, I think it would be very useful. Ambivalenthysteria 09:38, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most of the images seem to be being used. So I've ignored that bit - everyone else seems to have done. The page is contradictory. Secretlondon 09:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"In summary, almost any image within Wikipedia should be part of this repository eventually" contradicts the first bullet point. Secretlondon 09:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image repository

Moved thread from User talk:Lexor on 08:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC):

I fear my editing of the image repository will leave a number of pages that aren't really necessary, as I am trying to flesh out the best categorization. Could you delete those? The first is: Wikipedia:List_of_images/Places/Asia. I also cleaned out Wikipedia:Images with missing articles/Dog breeds, but I guess it can't be deleted, because some pages still link there. Wilke 05:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Lexor|Talk 08:23, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Add to this Wikipedia:List_of_images/Animals,Wikipedia:List_of_images/Plants,Wikipedia:List_of_images/Vegetables. I am wondering whether it is better to put everything under List_of_images/*, without further subdirectories, or to keep going further down. The latter option automatically creates all the right links to go back up, and I like that. On the other hand, the flat structure makes it easier to change the overall structure of subdivisions. For now, I am creating the subdirectories, but it is still early enough to change direction. Wilke 06:03, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's probably harmless to keep these redirects, because there are already links to some of them. As for having Nature/Animals or just Animals, I think either is fine, so long as it's consistent. Keep going with what you are doing now, nothing can't be undone. I lean somewhat to the hierarchy idea, myself, anyway. --Lexor|Talk 08:23, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I just noticed that the MediaWiki software now generates all the links in the hierarchy in "breadcrumb" style, which I hadn't noticed before. That being the case, I definitely vote for the hierarchy. --Lexor|Talk 08:25, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What this page is for

We need to re-write the page - at the moment it doesn't make a lot of sense. I propose copyleft and PD images only ie no fair use. I won't make any changes until I see what the consensus is. Secretlondon 09:56, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Ambivalenthysteria 10:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. Let's restrict the archive to copyleft and PD. In any case, the page is currently in transition, that's why it looks so strange. Theon started an archive of unused images, while I independently started an archive that was supposed to capture all images in wikipedia. I think such an archive could be tremendously useful, because if well done it is much easier to browse than to browse through all the articles that could be related to the image somebody is looking for. (For example: Are there images related to history in Wikipedia? Probably, but I couldn't find any within 15-20 min. search. With this archive up and running, the search would be trivial.)Wilke 19:57, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree as well. Thanks for the rewrite of the intro text, makes much more sense now. --Lexor|Talk 00:37, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What they said. Ambivalenthysteria
Why is this not in the article namespace? Ordinary users should be able to browse through images. Many articles do not have enough text to justify all relevant images being put on them, e.g. Egypt, but if we created Images of Egypt, we could put all of the fabulous photos we have there. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 10:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think I agree with this thought. I've already linked to it from articles in the article namespace--e.g., to the images of dogs from the list of dog breeds or whatever. Very nifty thing to have. Elf | Talk 19:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The reason I made this page in the wikipedia namespace was that the article namespace doesnt support the / operator in article names. To me, this allows easier navigation of the various galleries. I dont have a problem with the lowest level subpages being in the article namespace, for ease of linking and ease of finding the galleries. This will however, make navigation harder, since you cant move back and forth as easily. I definitly think that having image galleries for pages with lots of images linked to from here is a great idea. Theon 14:18, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)


What about adding a list of links to repositories of free images? There are a number of sites that offer free images, but not 100% public domain ie Copyleft. They are useful for teachers, for example.

[edit] Boilerplate header

We should probably come up with a boilerplate header that we put onto each page that is part of this repository. Something like:

This page is part of Wikipedia's repository of copyleft and public domain images. Please do not list fair use images here. For more information, see Wikipedia:List of images.

What needs to be done to turn this into a template? Wilke 19:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The information is on Wikipedia:Template messages. Secretlondon 21:28, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've made it as Template:Images - so you need to type {{Images}} which produces:


This page is part of Wikipedia's repository of public domain and freely usable images. Please do not list images which are only usable under the doctrine of fair use, images whose license restricts copying or distribution to non-commercial use only, or otherwise non-free images here. Please also consider uploading free images to the Wikimedia Commons so that they may be more widely used. For more information, see Wikipedia:List of images.

Secretlondon 21:39, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Places

Why have the images of the continents been removed from the places category? I didnt put them there, but they looked good. Theon 17:13, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I had put them there, but didn't remove them. They are licensed only for noncommercial use. One could argue that they should therefore not be in this repository, although I am not sure I agree. Wilke 00:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Images licensed for noncommercial use are not free images. See Wikipedia:List of images#What is a free image. Angela. 15:01, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] size of more then 2MB

  • Some pages as Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs showing only thumbs are about 2MB in size. They all use images refering to all of them with [[Image:xxxx.jpg|100px|thumb|none|[[yyyy]]]]. Later these pictures are refered mainly with 250px only.
  • I thing it would be a good idea having the thumbs directly available in a few sizes on the server(s). This would help both users (not everybody use a(n) high speed connection) and would help the server(s) too. What size these thumbs should have could be discussed / agreed together. Regards Gangleri 20:15, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
If you look at the sizes of the individual thumbnails, you will see that they are all reasonably sized (the vast majority is below 10KB, and only a handful are in the 40-50KB range). Therefore, there is no way around this problem short of listing fewer thumbs on a single page. My position is that if you are directing your browser to a page called "list of images", you must be prepared to do some downloading. And 2MB for way over 200 thumbnails is quite good, I would say. Wilke 00:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And this is because the nifty image-processing tools on Wikipedia automatically resize the image file itself based on the displayed size, eliminating the need for multiple copies of the same image. In fact, wikipedia has been divesting itself of duplicates of images in different sizes because they're no longer needed. Elf | Talk 16:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] commons

shouldn't this lot be moved/merged into the wikimedia commons? Plugwash 22:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Yeah, this page serves pretty much the same purpose as the commons does now. We need to move all of the pictures on this list to commons if they aren't already.--Alsocal 01:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there a global way to do it? There are many many pictures here-- Elf | Talk 04:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • A bot would be one way but it might be better to get in touch with the developers about doing something server side. I think the main sticking point on server side moves is what to do about the history. Plugwash 09:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not everything here can be placed in Commons. (SEWilco 05:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Gallery markup

The new gallery markup seems to suit these image lists and makes maintaining them easier. Is it OK to start using it here? -Hapsiainen 22:50, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Wilke 02:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd say use the category system. In the current MediaWiki categories show galleries of images instead of links to them. Also the category system automatically generates the markup necessary after we only put a small category tag. There is also a intuitive hierarchy system possible in categories, and categories/images are allowed to belong to more than one hierarchy (which means less problems with how to decide the hierarchy). Also Category:Insect pictures is more intuitive and easier to reach than Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Insects (whose name cannot be guessed easily, and which is why subpages were abolished in the article namespace).
BTW make all these categories subcategory of Category:Free images if we are only interested in a gallery of free images. -- Paddu 09:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have also considered it, but it would have a severe hindrance for the reader. If an image is placed in a category, you can see in the category page only the image itself and its file name. Nothing else interesting, like the place or the species name, can be told. -Hapsiainen 23:55, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Good point. There is a Category "bug" where someone is requesting the ability to use Pipe notation to list an entry under a different name, such as in a Redirect. Showing a different "name" for an image may be a related application. (SEWilco 08:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC))

[edit] CGI Images

Where do CGI images, Video game screenshots, and other 3D images, go? Im looking for a picture of a Computer generated forest I saw on Wikipedia earlier I cant find it now.

[edit] Download

Well, this is probably not the best place to ask...but I have a question. Where can I download an archive with all images from Wikipedia ? I am not able to find any link for it on new dumps.wikimedia.org ... Macronyx 00:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database download has info on this. I added a link on the project page. -- Beland 23:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free content license missing

The link to "free content license" goes to a nonexistent Article so somewhat more explanation is needed. (SEWilco 04:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Commons separation

Should images in Commons not be in these categories, requiring a separate search in Commons? Might images used in Wikipedia be categorized differently than the categories used in Commons? (SEWilco 05:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC))

I really don't now what's the community consensus here, but I think it's the only Wikipedia trying to make it's own little image archive. If I want to write an article for the german Wikipedia I will search in articles and in commons, but surely not in any backyard categories, lists or anything else like that. It's good to have categories "not yet moved to commons" if you really want to get deep inside but it's awful to search in "all we can link" categories. --Saperaud 05:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I also think this whole List section is completely useless. That's exactly what we have the Commons for: a repository of free images. Please use your valuable time for something more useful, e.g. moving files to the Commons. --AndreasPraefcke 18:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

So Category:Images of Earth should only contain non-Commons images, and people have to search separately the Commons classifications. (SEWilco 19:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC))
Isn't there a reason why we have the {{commonscat}} & {{commons}} templates. I don't think we need to duplicate what commons was set out to do. --Pamri • Talk 17:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The only images that can't be on the Commons are non-free images, and we shouldn't be making a gallery of non-free images because they are only fair use in specific articles. What exactly is the purpose of this article and all its subpages? savidan(talk) (e@) 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for deletion

These entire system is a needless duplication of Commons as the above writers have mentioned. I am seeking consensus to delete the whole batch. If only images that are free can be used here (as fair use does not work for galleries), then the only images in these pages are images that should be at Commons. Using the category I found the following pages, all of which I believe should be deleted:

Rmhermen 15:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Wikipedia_talk%7EList_of_images_50cf.html"